Like religions, evolution is learned. There is no proof for either,and there is nothing anyone from either group can demonstrate thatconclusively illustrates their chosen point of view.

Champions of evolution point to scientific books, papers, theories,DNA, fossils etc and declare evolution to be obvious.

Champions of religions point to religious books, papers, philosophy,design, experiences etc and declare God to be obvious.

Both rely heavily on a willingness to learn the subject for it to bebelieved, and both fail to convince if that willingness is absent.

Believing in a religion offers benefits, and believing the theory ofevolution does too.

Without the theory of evolution, atheism falls pretty flat. If thespecies didnt appear by random mutation and natural selection thenhow did they appear? There arent many options, and none of them fitwell with atheism.

With the theory of evolution, atheism has a foothold. Its tenuousbecause it needs support from abiogenesis (which is not forthcoming),and it needs a really, really, really imaginative idea of what canhappen by coincidence when matter explodes itself into existence alongwith time and precise laws, for no reason. But, if enough trustedintellectuals with straight faces and genuine sincerity say itspossible, then trusting people will go along with it. If that isaccepted then random mutation and natural selection is not such ahurdle for skeptics.

In short TOE gives an atheist a fig leaf to hide behind from anyhigher power who can judge him and affect what happens when this lifeis over.

There are a few reasons to believe the theory of evolution is correctbecause consciousness does actually move through different species toarrive at the human form in much the same pathways as the species areunderstood to have evolved. If the anomalies are ignored, and itspresented authoritatively to children in their formative years, it cantake hold for the rest of their life. The fact that many Christianslike to add the guiding hand of God to the process (while possiblyannoying to some), does give validity to the proper adult version,which dispenses with the childish God-involved theory.

There are also a few reasons to believe that religions are correct.Beginning from defining the Absolute Truth down to experiences.

The TOE is the best that atheism has and its used tirelessly topromote atheism. Just as religions tend to try and influence allaspects of life, evolution is now used to influence as many areas oflife as possible. Billions of dollars are spent around it. It isthreaded into entertainment, documentaries, museums, sociology,psychology and multiple areas of science until its accepted as anobvious irrefutable fact. Just as religions can be.

There is no proof for the theory of evolution; thats why its atheory, not just a theory but a theory none-the-less. Its rightthere in the name. Its not a scientific fact. It depends oninterpretation at the top level where the research is done and thenbelieving what you are taught down at the levels of students, sciencegeeks and the man in the street. If you dont believe what thescientists tell you, there is no evidence.

Not you, nor me, nor anyone else, is ever going to observe it forreal. It requires faith in ones assessment if one is a scientist andfaith in what you are told if you arent. Many atheists dont believesomething until someone they consider an authority tells them thatits okay to believe it and then they do. Their authority is calledscience. It doesnt mean its true but they believe it is becausesomeone they trust tells them it is. Most religions work like this.

If TOE falls than it will drag down whole branches of what we acceptas knowledge. Decades of work and study will have been wasted, careerswill end, grants will dry up and huge areas of science will beirrelevant. This is similar to religions that fail.

Beliefs are cherished because they support how we see the world andhow we want the world to be, seldom how the world is. Many people areuncomfortable with others who view the world differently to them. Formany of those who believe in the atheistic theory of evolution, thenthose who believe in God can be tolerated as long as they stay awayfrom sensitive areas.

If they are in another country thats best, but when they are in thesame country and are questioning or worse, attacking, the fundamentalbasis of a whole view of life, then those who buy into that view oflife can sometimes turn nasty. They are the counterparts to the nastyChristians who talk about eternal hellfire and wave their Bible in theair, except they talk about ignorance and wave scientific papers inthe air with the same conviction, arrogance, and condescension.

But even though the TOE shares many similarities with religions,ultimately its not one because there is always a process to realizethe truth in a religion, but with TOE there is no such process. Afterall the questioning, the researching and theorising you are leftsimply with the choice to believe or not, because evolution of thespecies cannot be experienced.

Post by JahnuIt is very similar in many ways.Like religions, evolution is learned. There is no proof for either,and there is nothing anyone from either group can demonstrate thatconclusively illustrates their chosen point of view.Champions of evolution point to scientific books, papers, theories,DNA, fossils etc and declare evolution to be obvious.Champions of religions point to religious books, papers, philosophy,design, experiences etc and declare God to be obvious.Both rely heavily on a willingness to learn the subject for it to bebelieved, and both fail to convince if that willingness is absent.Believing in a religion offers benefits, and believing the theory ofevolution does too.Without the theory of evolution, atheism falls pretty flat. If thespecies didn’t appear by random mutation and natural selection thenhow did they appear? There aren’t many options, and none of them fitwell with atheism.With the theory of evolution, atheism has a foothold. It’s tenuousbecause it needs support from abiogenesis (which is not forthcoming),and it needs a really, really, really imaginative idea of what canhappen by coincidence when matter explodes itself into existence alongwith time and precise laws, for no reason. But, if enough trustedintellectuals with straight faces and genuine sincerity say it’spossible, then trusting people will go along with it. If that isaccepted then random mutation and natural selection is not such ahurdle for skeptics.In short TOE gives an atheist a fig leaf to hide behind from anyhigher power who can judge him and affect what happens when this lifeis over.There are a few reasons to believe the theory of evolution is correctbecause consciousness does actually move through different species toarrive at the human form in much the same pathways as the species areunderstood to have evolved. If the anomalies are ignored, and it’spresented authoritatively to children in their formative years, it cantake hold for the rest of their life. The fact that many Christianslike to add the guiding hand of God to the process (while possiblyannoying to some), does give validity to the proper adult version,which dispenses with the childish ‘God-involved’ theory.There are also a few reasons to believe that religions are correct.Beginning from defining the Absolute Truth down to experiences.The TOE is the best that atheism has and it’s used tirelessly topromote atheism. Just as religions tend to try and influence allaspects of life, evolution is now used to influence as many areas oflife as possible. Billions of dollars are spent around it. It isthreaded into entertainment, documentaries, museums, sociology,psychology and multiple areas of science until it’s accepted as anobvious irrefutable fact. Just as religions can be.There is no proof for the theory of evolution; that’s why it’s atheory, not ‘just’ a theory but a theory none-the-less. It’s rightthere in the name. It’s not a scientific fact. It depends oninterpretation at the top level where the research is done and thenbelieving what you are taught down at the levels of students, sciencegeeks and the man in the street. If you don’t believe what thescientists tell you, there is no evidence.Not you, nor me, nor anyone else, is ever going to observe it forreal. It requires faith in one’s assessment if one is a scientist andfaith in what you are told if you aren’t. Many atheists don’t believesomething until someone they consider an authority tells them thatit’s okay to believe it and then they do. Their authority is calledscience. It doesn’t mean it’s true but they believe it is becausesomeone they trust tells them it is. Most religions work like this.If TOE falls than it will drag down whole branches of what we acceptas knowledge. Decades of work and study will have been wasted, careerswill end, grants will dry up and huge areas of science will beirrelevant. This is similar to religions that fail.Beliefs are cherished because they support how we see the world andhow we want the world to be, seldom how the world is. Many people areuncomfortable with others who view the world differently to them. Formany of those who believe in the atheistic theory of evolution, thenthose who believe in God can be tolerated as long as they stay awayfrom sensitive areas.If they are in another country that’s best, but when they are in thesame country and are questioning or worse, attacking, the fundamentalbasis of a whole view of life, then those who buy into that view oflife can sometimes turn nasty. They are the counterparts to the nastyChristians who talk about eternal hellfire and wave their Bible in theair, except they talk about ignorance and wave scientific papers inthe air with the same conviction, arrogance, and condescension.But even though the TOE shares many similarities with religions,ultimately it’s not one because there is always a process to realizethe truth in a religion, but with TOE there is no such process. Afterall the questioning, the researching and theorising you are leftsimply with the choice to believe or not, because evolution of thespecies cannot be experienced.https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watchhttps://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnuhttp://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-dashttp://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

Just forget the 150+ years of solid evidence and research thathas proven beneficial to manki d and the benefits that have impacted many, many other sciences. All of that is just an elaborate hoax by atheists so we can fuck with your head. Sadly, we were too late, your head was already fucked.

Evolution is an observable fact.ToE explained how it worked and the discovery of DNA helped science understand it better.

Nobody has demonstrated that ToE is false. Nobody has found a better explanation of how evolution happens.

You have nothing but your incredible ignorance and zero facts to hang your denial on.

IOW you have nothing, just like every other moronic theist who preys here.

Post by JahnuIt is very similar in many ways.Like religions, evolution is learned. There is no proof for either,and there is nothing anyone from either group can demonstrate thatconclusively illustrates their chosen point of view.Champions of evolution point to scientific books, papers, theories,DNA, fossils etc and declare evolution to be obvious.Champions of religions point to religious books, papers, philosophy,design, experiences etc and declare God to be obvious.Both rely heavily on a willingness to learn the subject for it to bebelieved, and both fail to convince if that willingness is absent.Believing in a religion offers benefits, and believing the theory ofevolution does too.Without the theory of evolution, atheism falls pretty flat. If thespecies didn’t appear by random mutation and natural selection thenhow did they appear? There aren’t many options, and none of them fitwell with atheism.With the theory of evolution, atheism has a foothold. It’s tenuousbecause it needs support from abiogenesis (which is not forthcoming),and it needs a really, really, really imaginative idea of what canhappen by coincidence when matter explodes itself into existence alongwith time and precise laws, for no reason. But, if enough trustedintellectuals with straight faces and genuine sincerity say it’spossible, then trusting people will go along with it. If that isaccepted then random mutation and natural selection is not such ahurdle for skeptics.In short TOE gives an atheist a fig leaf to hide behind from anyhigher power who can judge him and affect what happens when this lifeis over.There are a few reasons to believe the theory of evolution is correctbecause consciousness does actually move through different species toarrive at the human form in much the same pathways as the species areunderstood to have evolved. If the anomalies are ignored, and it’spresented authoritatively to children in their formative years, it cantake hold for the rest of their life. The fact that many Christianslike to add the guiding hand of God to the process (while possiblyannoying to some), does give validity to the proper adult version,which dispenses with the childish ‘God-involved’ theory.There are also a few reasons to believe that religions are correct.Beginning from defining the Absolute Truth down to experiences.The TOE is the best that atheism has and it’s used tirelessly topromote atheism. Just as religions tend to try and influence allaspects of life, evolution is now used to influence as many areas oflife as possible. Billions of dollars are spent around it. It isthreaded into entertainment, documentaries, museums, sociology,psychology and multiple areas of science until it’s accepted as anobvious irrefutable fact. Just as religions can be.There is no proof for the theory of evolution; that’s why it’s atheory, not ‘just’ a theory but a theory none-the-less. It’s rightthere in the name. It’s not a scientific fact. It depends oninterpretation at the top level where the research is done and thenbelieving what you are taught down at the levels of students, sciencegeeks and the man in the street. If you don’t believe what thescientists tell you, there is no evidence.Not you, nor me, nor anyone else, is ever going to observe it forreal. It requires faith in one’s assessment if one is a scientist andfaith in what you are told if you aren’t. Many atheists don’t believesomething until someone they consider an authority tells them thatit’s okay to believe it and then they do. Their authority is calledscience. It doesn’t mean it’s true but they believe it is becausesomeone they trust tells them it is. Most religions work like this.If TOE falls than it will drag down whole branches of what we acceptas knowledge. Decades of work and study will have been wasted, careerswill end, grants will dry up and huge areas of science will beirrelevant. This is similar to religions that fail.Beliefs are cherished because they support how we see the world andhow we want the world to be, seldom how the world is. Many people areuncomfortable with others who view the world differently to them. Formany of those who believe in the atheistic theory of evolution, thenthose who believe in God can be tolerated as long as they stay awayfrom sensitive areas.If they are in another country that’s best, but when they are in thesame country and are questioning or worse, attacking, the fundamentalbasis of a whole view of life, then those who buy into that view oflife can sometimes turn nasty. They are the counterparts to the nastyChristians who talk about eternal hellfire and wave their Bible in theair, except they talk about ignorance and wave scientific papers inthe air with the same conviction, arrogance, and condescension.But even though the TOE shares many similarities with religions,ultimately it’s not one because there is always a process to realizethe truth in a religion, but with TOE there is no such process. Afterall the questioning, the researching and theorising you are leftsimply with the choice to believe or not, because evolution of thespecies cannot be experienced.https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watchhttps://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnuhttp://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-dashttp://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

Just forget the 150+ years of solid evidence and research thathas proven beneficial to manki d and the benefits that have impacted many, many other sciences. All of that is just an elaborate hoax by atheists so we can fuck with your head. Sadly, we were too late, your head was already fucked.Evolution is an observable fact.ToE explained how it worked and the discovery of DNA helped science understand it better.Nobody has demonstrated that ToE is false. Nobody has found a better explanation of how evolution happens.You have nothing but your incredible ignorance and zero facts to hang your denial on.IOW you have nothing, just like every other moronic theist who preys here.

Post by Cloud HobbitJust forget the 150+ years of solid evidence and research thathas proven beneficial to manki d and the benefits that have impacted many, many other sciences. All of that is just an elaborate hoax by atheists so we can fuck with your head. Sadly, we were too late, your head was already fucked.Evolution is an observable fact.ToE explained how it worked and the discovery of DNA helped science understand it better.

Hehe, listen to this unevolved piece of shit.

You are merely spouting the slogans of the mindless masses. In sciencethey know better. Only the briad, mindless masses think evolution hasanything to do with science. Here s what science has to say aboutludicrous assertions.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life aregreat con-men, And the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAXEVER." -- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinianaccounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, onlya variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, EmeritusProfessor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado StateUniversity, in an Oxford University Press text.

"Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide afruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especiallyclear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomicmodel, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances inthe synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however,mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimentalbiology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number ofscientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstonesfor tangible breakthroughs." --U.S. National Academy of Sciencesmember Philip Skell

"[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popularhalf-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only bythe religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy ofSciences member Lynn Margulis

"Mutations have a very limited ?constructive capacity? . No matter hownumerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."--Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between majortransitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in ourimagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, hasbeen a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts ofevolution." --Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

"Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universaltree, from its root to the major branchings within and among thevarious taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." --Thefather of molecular systematics, Carl Woese

"Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil recordfirst appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian . The fossil record istherefore of no help with respect to the origin and earlydiversification of the various animal phyla." --Invertebrate ZoologyTextbook

"It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combinedwith natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands ofnew proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimizedfunctions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integratedmolecular systems that consist of many interacting parts." --Twoleading biologists inAnnual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

"New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, notconnected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."--Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr

Science now know that many of the pillars of the Darwinian theory areeither false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present themas factual evidence of Evolution. What does this imply about theirscientific standards? - Jonathan Wells

The bacteriologist Alan H. Linton wrote:

"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has beenshown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form ofindependent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generationtimes of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved aftereighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science ofbacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria haschanged into another. Since there is no evidence for species changesbetween the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprisingthat there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryoticcells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher muliticellularorganisms."

Post by JahnuEvolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan echoed the same"Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cagesof the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of thepaleontologists, still has never been traced."

That's an odd statement to read, as speciation has be observed manytimes (and is almost routine in agronomy). Does it make more sense incontext?

Post by Ernest MajorThat's an odd statement to read, as speciation has be observed manytimes (and is almost routine in agronomy). Does it make more sense incontext?

It's not so odd, when seen in connection with all the other statementsof scientists who admit that evolution one big pile of bullshit, thatonly the blind masses believe in.

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinianaccounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, onlya variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, EmeritusProfessor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado StateUniversity, in an Oxford University Press text.

Post by Ernest MajorThat's an odd statement to read, as speciation has be observed manytimes (and is almost routine in agronomy). Does it make more sense incontext?

Speciation has never been observed anywhere at anytime. Either youare extremely stupid, being an obnoxious, lying little shit onpurpose, just to annoy me, or you just learned a new word that feelcompelled to use like dumb moron, who has no idea what he is talkingabout. In anay case, you obviously belong to general population of theindoctrinated masses.

Post by Ernest MajorThat's an odd statement to read, as speciation has be observed manytimes (and is almost routine in agronomy). Does it make more sense incontext?

Speciation has never been observed anywhere at anytime. Either youare extremely stupid, being an obnoxious, lying little shit onpurpose, just to annoy me, or you just learned a new word that feelcompelled to use like dumb moron, who has no idea what he is talkingabout. In anay case, you obviously belong to general population of theindoctrinated masses.

If you showed any trace of sincerity I'd present some instances to you.As it is, are you a Christian pretending to be a Satanist pretending tobe a Christian pretending to be an atheist pretending to be a Hindu, orare more levels of indirection involved?

Post by Ernest MajorThat's an odd statement to read, as speciation has be observed manytimes (and is almost routine in agronomy). Does it make more sense incontext?

Speciation has never been observed anywhere at anytime. Either youare extremely stupid, being an obnoxious, lying little shit onpurpose, just to annoy me, or you just learned a new word that feelcompelled to use like dumb moron, who has no idea what he is talkingabout. In anay case, you obviously belong to general population of theindoctrinated masses.

A deliberate lie by the lying liar who has been given examples fromthe talk.origins FAQ every time he has repeated this lie.

Post by Ernest MajorIf you showed any trace of sincerity I'd present some instances to you.As it is, are you a Christian pretending to be a Satanist pretending tobe a Christian pretending to be an atheist pretending to be a Hindu, orare more levels of indirection involved?

Hindus regard the Hari Krishna loonies the same way Christians viewthe Moonie loonies.

I don't know what made him lose his mind, but he seems to be a genuineHari Krishna loonie.

Some time back, he said he lived in Mayapur - which is where theISKCON headquarters are. A Dane emigrating to live there would be likea Parisian emigrating to Salt Lake City.

The deliberately dishonest liar uses an out of context quote by apalaeontologist who accepts and understands evolution, who was talkingabout a geological time scale. His "rather suddenly" was still a longtime in human terms.

The lying liar has had this explained over and over again, with citesfrom and a link to the talk.origins quote mine project.

Post by Ernest MajorIf you showed any trace of sincerity I'd present some instances to you.As it is, are you a Christian pretending to be a Satanist pretending tobe a Christian pretending to be an atheist pretending to be a Hindu, orare more levels of indirection involved?

Hahaha :) I can see you are trying hard to make sense, you poordeluded, indoctrinated sucker.

A new religion has evolved in the global culture. It's calledScientism. Even though modern science has absolutely nothing sensibleto say about the reality we live in, the general population isconvinced that science has explained away the need for God andreligion.

Scientific theories like abiogenesis and evolution, even though theyare pure and unalloyed myths, are being taught in all educationalinstitutions of the world as scientific facts.

Who has decided that technological expertise is the best way tomeasure our ability to understand the reality we live in? Those whoare influential in defining peoples' realities - the producers,scientists, the media, politicians, etc. -- have made technologicaladvancement the barometer of human progress. They claim that theadvancement of technology is the most noble pursuit of the human race,that it has made the world a better place to live in.

As proof, they list all the consumer gadgets we use and are dependentupon - computers, cell-phones, televisions, DVDs, cars, and so on -and say that the intelligence to build these things shows that we haveadvanced our understanding of nature and how she works far beyond ourability in the middle ages.

But is this assertion correct? To build a computer, one certainlyrequires advanced knowledge of physics and chemistry, but thesedisciplines describe only a tiny part of the reality we perceive. Afar greater part of reality is our conscious experience of it --something most people don't even think about.

Few people ponder the fact that their understanding of the world isconditioned by the culture they grew up in. They automatically take itfor granted that the way they perceive the world is the correct one,and that nature is best described in physical and chemical terms.Modern science is very useful for making technology, in fact, it's theonly thing it is good for, and when we live in a world where themasses are kept in awe and reverence of technological wonders, scienceis, of course, a most important undertaking.

But the jubilation of modern people over the newest technology is nodifferent from the gaping wonder with which people in the middle agesregarded sorcerers and magicians firing off sulphur and gun powder.The magicians did this to dupe their audiences and secure theircomfortable hold on society.

In the middle ages, in the West at least, the regents of society keptpeople in ignorance so they were easy to control and manipulate, andtoday the exact same means are used to enslave people in ignorance. Inthe global culture the slaves have just been upgraded to amiddle-class with their own house and car.

People still slave their lives away in boring jobs and are marred bythe same endless worries and miseries, people have always sufferedfrom. They are still being ground down by taxation, victims of greedypoliticians, exactly like they've always been.

There is no basis for saying that advanced knowledge of mathematicsand physics enables a person to better understand the world any morethan the cave dweller of some 2000 years ago who worshiped nature andvarious gods.

If the modern culture is based on a better understanding of the world,why is it ruining nature and her inhabitants at an alarming rate? Ifmodern man is more advanced in his understanding of nature, why is hesawing the branch he is sitting on?

Despite the so-called advancement of modern society, people are tillnot able to transcend their mental conditioning. The proof is thatmodern society does not produce people with evolved consciousness.Rather, we see the exact opposite - in direct proportion to theadvancement of technology, people have become more and more base andidiotic in the way they treat and relate to each-other.

Some years ago, WHO published a report saying that the biggest healthcrisis facing the world in the new millennium is that more and morepeople will be born with mental defects. Is that the symptom of anevolved society?

Society, as it is, is not equipped to facilitate self-realized humanbeings. What need does a self-realized person have for the plethora ofuseless products being produced by the few conglomerates that controlworld consumerism? Such enlightenment would indeed negate thenecessity for the technological advancement upon which the world'sfinances now rely.

That is why, in the current global culture, a deliberate campaignexists to transform people into atheists. In such a culture, religionis being ridiculed and has been replaced with politics. Instead ofvoting for a particular religion, the public now votes forpoliticians, who are mostly hired by those multinationals with thebiggest checkbooks -- all in the name of serving the people, ofcourse.

The modern, global culture has already made the whole world into onebig marketplace - a worldwide altar where technology is worshiped asthe new opium of the masses.

Being fed endless propaganda from Hollywood where technology saves theday, we quickly forget that technology, despite assurances to thecontrary, cannot save us from the onslaughts of nature. Time and timeagain, technology comes up short in the fight against nature.The new high-priests of society, now clad in white frocks instead ofblack, fail to comprehend how the mechanisms of nature work. And howcould they? They also suffer from the misunderstanding that everythingis dead matter, and are restricted by the assumption that theirknowledge of physical laws alone can explain the world.

Yet more important than understanding how physical matter works is theunderstanding how consciousness, false ego, intelligence and mindwork. These make up a much greater part of the reality we perceive. Aslong as we fail to understand the difference between matter andconsciousness, we cannot even be said to have evolved beyond animalconsciousness.

That's why atheism is dangerous - it keeps the consciousness trappedin a 3-dimensional world of matter. It keeps the self from its raremission in the human life-form - to understand consciousness. Itcultivates a perception of life where the consciousness cannot seeitself - a deception where the self is being absorbed in matterforgets itself.

Every individual is duty-bound to alter their consciousness andconnect it with the whole - Sri Krishna. While Srila Prabhupada was anitya-siddha, he was also a social revolutionary, as was the Lord heserved - Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. The political correctness thatpredominates in the world and passes as social etiquette should notstop us from assisting him in his mission - to silence the atheisticclass of men, and to inundate the world with Krishna Consciousness.

Krishna says:

The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternalfragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling veryhard with the six senses, which include the mind.

The living entity in the material world carries his differentconceptions of life from one body to another, as the air carriesaromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it to takeanother.

The living entity, thus taking another gross body, obtains a certaintype of ear, eye, tongue, nose and sense of touch, which are groupedabout the mind. He thus enjoys a particular set of sense objects.

The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body,nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell ofthe modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge cansee all this.

The endeavoring transcendentalists who are situated inself-realization can see all this clearly. But those whose minds arenot developed and who are not situated in self-realization cannot seewhat is taking place, though they may try.

Post by Ernest MajorThat's an odd statement to read, as speciation has be observed manytimes (and is almost routine in agronomy). Does it make more sense incontext?

Speciation has never been observed anywhere at anytime. Either youare extremely stupid, being an obnoxious, lying little shit onpurpose, just to annoy me, or you just learned a new word that feelcompelled to use like dumb moron, who has no idea what he is talkingabout. In anay case, you obviously belong to general population of theindoctrinated masses.

If you showed any trace of sincerity I'd present some instances to you.As it is, are you a Christian pretending to be a Satanist pretending tobe a Christian pretending to be an atheist pretending to be a Hindu, orare more levels of indirection involved?

Jahnu is a Krishna hippy hop. He knows nothing at all about science andmost of what he posts is from Hindu religious scrolls.

Post by m***@gmail.comJahnu is a Krishna hippy hop. He knows nothing at all about science andmost of what he posts is from Hindu religious scrolls.

"I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad Geeta. It was the first ofbooks; it was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy,but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence whichin another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the samequestions which exercise us." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, andI see not one ray of hope on the horizon, I turn to Bhagavad Geeta andfind a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in themidst of overwhelming sorrow. Those who meditate on the Gita willderive fresh joy and new meanings from it every day." - Mahatma Gandhi"The marvel of the Bhagavad Geeta is its truly beautiful revelation oflife's wisdom which enables philosophy to blossom into religion." -Herman Hesse

"The Bhagavad Geeta is the most systematic statement of spiritualevolution of endowing value to mankind. It is one of the most clearand comprehensive summaries of perennial philosophy ever revealed;hence its enduring value is subject not only to India but to all ofhumanity." - Aldous Huxley

"The idea that man is like unto an inverted tree seems to have beencurrent in by gone ages. The link with Vedic conceptions is providedby Plato in his Timaeus in which it states 'behold we are not anearthly but a heavenly plant.' This correlation can be discerned bywhat Krishna expresses in chapter 15 of Bhagavad Geeta." - Carl Jung

"The Bhagavad Geeta has a profound influence on the spirit of mankindby its devotion to God which is manifested by actions." - Dr. AlbertSchweitzer

"In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonalphilosophy of the Bhagavad Geeta, in comparison with which our modernworld and its literature seem puny and trivial." - Henry DavidThoreau

"The reader is nowhere raised into and sustained in a bigger, purer orrarer region of thought than in the Bhagavad Gita"- Henry David Thoreau

"The religion and philosophy of the Hebrews are those of a wilder andruder tribe, wanting the civility and intellectual refinements andsubtlety of Vedic culture." - Henry David Thoreau

"In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and so elevatingas that of the Upanishads. It has been thesolace of my life -- it will be the solace of my death." -- ArthurSchopenhauer

"I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad Gita. It was as if an empirespoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, butlarge, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which inanother age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the samequestions which exercise us."-- Ralph Waldo Emerson The famous poem "Brahm" is an example of hisVedanta ecstasy.

"The most beautiful, perhaps the only true philosophical song existingin any known tongue ... perhaps the deepest and loftiest thing theworld has to show." --Wilhelm von Humboldt

Post by Jahnu[...]You are merely spouting the slogans of the mindless masses.

Are you blind to the irony of that statement? Your posts consist ofalmost nothing else besides mindlessly spouted slogans.

To answer the question in your subject: Religion, as you practice it,requires that you cease to think for yourself. Evolution requires thatpeople be able to reason independently. Therefore evolution is not areligion.

One more thing Jesper, ToE and evolution have nothing to do with atheism. That atheists are smart enough to recognize that understand that ToE is sound science has nothing to do with any decision to reject the idiotic idea of any God or gods.

Post by JahnuIt is very similar in many ways.Like religions, evolution is learned. There is no proof for either,and there is nothing anyone from either group can demonstrate thatconclusively illustrates their chosen point of view.

...you're already dead in the water. In regards to evolution, there'sno "point of view". Evolution is a proven fact of nature, supportedby a huge body of irrefutable evidence and confined across multiplescientific disciplines. Religion, on the other hand, has nosupporting body of evidence whatsoever and can thus be discardedinto the trash bin with all the other rubbish.

Post by JahnuIt is very similar in many ways.Like religions, evolution is learned. There is no proof for either,and there is nothing anyone from either group can demonstrate thatconclusively illustrates their chosen point of view.

...you're already dead in the water. In regards to evolution, there'sno "point of view". Evolution is a proven fact of nature, supportedby a huge body of irrefutable evidence and confined across multiplescientific disciplines. Religion, on the other hand, has nosupporting body of evidence whatsoever and can thus be discardedinto the trash bin with all the other rubbish.

You mean "unrefuted" evidence, right? The wholepoint is that it is refutable.

Post by JahnuIt is very similar in many ways.Like religions, evolution is learned. There is no proof for either,and there is nothing anyone from either group can demonstrate thatconclusively illustrates their chosen point of view.

...you're already dead in the water. In regards to evolution, there'sno "point of view". Evolution is a proven fact of nature, supportedby a huge body of irrefutable evidence and confined across multiplescientific disciplines. Religion, on the other hand, has nosupporting body of evidence whatsoever and can thus be discardedinto the trash bin with all the other rubbish.

You mean "unrefuted" evidence, right? The wholepoint is that it is refutable.

no he means get ready to hear him tell you no matter what you show him ,that that is unacceptable proof in fact get ready for him to sayanything that denies what you say

Post by JahnuIt is very similar in many ways.Like religions, evolution is learned. There is no proof for either,and there is nothing anyone from either group can demonstrate thatconclusively illustrates their chosen point of view.

...you're already dead in the water. In regards to evolution, there'sno "point of view". Evolution is a proven fact of nature, supportedby a huge body of irrefutable evidence and confined across multiplescientific disciplines. Religion, on the other hand, has nosupporting body of evidence whatsoever and can thus be discardedinto the trash bin with all the other rubbish.

You mean "unrefuted" evidence, right? The wholepoint is that it is refutable.

no he means get ready to hear him tell you no matter what you show him ,that that is unacceptable proof in fact get ready for him to sayanything that denies what you say

Post by JahnuIt is very similar in many ways.Like religions, evolution is learned. There is no proof for either,and there is nothing anyone from either group can demonstrate thatconclusively illustrates their chosen point of view.

...you're already dead in the water. In regards to evolution, there'sno "point of view". Evolution is a proven fact of nature, supportedby a huge body of irrefutable evidence and confined across multiplescientific disciplines. Religion, on the other hand, has nosupporting body of evidence whatsoever and can thus be discardedinto the trash bin with all the other rubbish.

You mean "unrefuted" evidence, right? The wholepoint is that it is refutable.

Post by Jahnu[...]The TOE is the best that atheism has and it’s usedtirelessly to promote atheism.

Evolution can be observed. It seems to explain why speciesslowly change over time. Religion proposes that GAWD is thereason for everything and the reason for every single eventwhich occurs anywhere and everywhere.

Even if I believed in a GAWD -- that doesn't automatically meanthat I would believe that GAWD is good, or caring, or loving,or in any way interested in human beings or this tiny planet,or is doing anything at all. Why? Because GAWD is never seen andnever heard and never seems to prevent terrible tragedies orwars or do anything at all.

You could be a THEIST and still ignore the lame and useless GAWDwho is nasty, uncaring, irrelevant or dead.

Post by Jahnu[...]The TOE is the best that atheism has and it’s usedtirelessly to promote atheism.

Evolution can be observed. It seems to explain why speciesslowly change over time. Religion proposes that GAWD is thereason for everything and the reason for every single eventwhich occurs anywhere and everywhere.

No. Not all theists are Creationists.

Post by DavejEven if I believed in a GAWD -- that doesn't automatically meanthat I would believe that GAWD is good, or caring, or loving,or in any way interested in human beings or this tiny planet,or is doing anything at all. Why? Because GAWD is never seen andnever heard and never seems to prevent terrible tragedies orwars or do anything at all.You could be a THEIST and still ignore the lame and useless GAWDwho is nasty, uncaring, irrelevant or dead.

Post by Jahnu[...]The TOE is the best that atheism has and it’s usedtirelessly to promote atheism.

Evolution can be observed. It seems to explain why speciesslowly change over time. Religion proposes that GAWD is thereason for everything and the reason for every single eventwhich occurs anywhere and everywhere.Even if I believed in a GAWD -- that doesn't automatically meanthat I would believe that GAWD is good, or caring, or loving,or in any way interested in human beings or this tiny planet,or is doing anything at all. Why? Because GAWD is never seen andnever heard and never seems to prevent terrible tragedies orwars or do anything at all.You could be a THEIST and still ignore the lame and useless GAWDwho is nasty, uncaring, irrelevant or dead.

That sounds like Deism. My view of this is a god that lays Universe eggsall over the place, then leaves them to develop on their own. Whateverevolves is on its own. The Universe laying Super Chicken might not evenknow what it's doing. The question remains, where did the Super Chickencome from and what made it? And what made whatever made it? Chickens allthe way down?

Post by JahnuLike religions, evolution is learned. There is no proof for either,and there is nothing anyone from either group can demonstrate thatconclusively illustrates their chosen point of view.Champions of evolution point to scientific books, papers, theories,DNA, fossils etc and declare evolution to be obvious.Champions of religions point to religious books, papers, philosophy,design, experiences etc and declare God to be obvious.

The difference is that, ultimately, religion has only appeal to authority. Theevidence for evolution ultimately lies in the physical world, whereas theevidence presented by religion lies in the mental world. Darwin is not aprophet. The ToE ceased to belong to him as soon as he published it. Indeed theToE existed long before Darwin. The ToE itself, has evolved to encompass newfacts.

Science is always open to defend it's theories with facts about the physicalworld, not just facts about what convictions people may have.

Post by JahnuBoth rely heavily on a willingness to learn the subject for it to bebelieved, and both fail to convince if that willingness is absent.Believing in a religion offers benefits, and believing the theory ofevolution does too.Without the theory of evolution, atheism falls pretty flat. If thespecies didnt appear by random mutation and natural selection thenhow did they appear? There arent many options, and none of them fitwell with atheism.

Remember Darwin started off as a comitted Christian, and was reluctant topublish partly _because_ he felt that these discoveries weakened religion.Indeed they clearly weakened his own religious faith. As he examined nature hewas horrified by its cruelty, and that seems to have brought he to questionwhat kind of a god could be responsible. And yes, evolution drove the god ofthe gaps into a more confined area. But atheism has always existed. All the ToEhas done is to demolish one of the problems.

Post by JahnuWith the theory of evolution, atheism has a foothold. Its tenuousbecause it needs support from abiogenesis (which is not forthcoming),

Again you confuse evolution with abiogenesis. They are separate problems.

However there's a third way with our understanding of how abiogenesis occuered,neither God nor Oparin-Haldane and that's to admit that WE DON'T KNOW. The samething could have been said about the origins of the species before Darwinthought about natural selection. That's the starting point for science. WEDON'T KNOW. Religion always believes that everything is known. Science thriveson known unknowns.

Now a days you can't get away with burning people on stakes like thechurch used to.

But no university will hire you if you express doubt in the theory ofevolution.

Brilliant, prominent scientists, however, who have made a name forthemselves already, they don't give a shit about the atheisticdominance in modern science, they just speak the truth - thatevolution is a bullshit theory with no science to back it up.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life aregreat con-men, And the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAXEVER." -- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinianaccounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, onlya variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, EmeritusProfessor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado StateUniversity, in an Oxford University Press text.

"Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide afruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especiallyclear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomicmodel, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances inthe synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however,mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimentalbiology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number ofscientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstonesfor tangible breakthroughs." --U.S. National Academy of Sciencesmember Philip Skell

"[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popularhalf-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only bythe religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy ofSciences member Lynn Margulis

"Mutations have a very limited ?constructive capacity? . No matter hownumerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."--Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between majortransitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in ourimagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, hasbeen a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts ofevolution." --Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

Post by Malcolm McMahonReckon they'd welcome you with open arms if you came up with a better theory.Goddunit isn't a theory, it's the lack of one.

You mean something like - the chemicalsdoneit? :D

----but, but, but there is no magic involved in creating life. It'sall a natural process. If you ask me what exactly is that naturalprocess, I have no idea, I just call it a natural process to make itsound like it's science, to fool creationists into thinking, that Iknow what I'm talking about.

These poor religious fanatics, they need some magical, invisible pixiesitting in the sky, to explain nature, but me? Forget it, I don't needmagic to explain nature, because it's all a naturall process.

You see, first there was a point... I call the point a singularity tomake it sound less ridiculous, I fabulate it's a point of all mass,space, and time, so no need to worry about what was outside the point,because there was nothing outside the point - no space, no time, nomass, no condencity, no nothing, you understand? There was only thepoint, and from that point a universe came out, just like that, for noapparent reason, it just happened, see? No magic involved... it's alla natural process, and as we all know natural processes are veryscientic.

I won't get into what happened with the natural processes after theuniverse popped into existence - how life evolved out of chemicals andthen transmuted from an amoeba into a talking human being. Don't worryyourself about all these annoying details, all you have to understandis that it's completely natural and scientific.... and that ithappened over long, long time. That's all you have to know.

Also, don't worry yourself that noone with a brain actually believesthe world created itself out of a bunch of chemicals, don't worry thatthe most prominent and brainy scientists on the planet support theidea of ID - Intelligent Design, simply because it makes more sense.

That's totally inconsequential. All you have to know, is that it's allcompletely natural. It doesn't matter you have no clue what it meansor entails. You simply have to repeat it like a mantra, just try it -natural process, natural process, natural natural process process, nomagic, no magic, magic magic no no... see how good it makes you feel?

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that asuperintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistryand biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking aboutin nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me sooverwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." - FredHoyle, astrophysicist

Post by Malcolm McMahonReckon they'd welcome you with open arms if you came up with a better theory.Goddunit isn't a theory, it's the lack of one.

You mean something like - the chemicalsdoneit? :D

As usual you are not talking about evolution, but abiogenesis.

And, in that, there is plenty of room for theorising, and several theories still considered plausible.

As I posted recently - life is like fire. The shape of a fire isn't much affected by the spark that ignited it, but rather by the fuel it consumes. Little or nothing about evolution depends on the spark that was the first replicator, or how that came to be. And, like a forest fire, life has probably consumed all evidence of the spark that ignited it.

Post by Malcolm McMahonAs I posted recently - life is like fire. The shape of a fire isn't much affected by the spark that ignited it, but rather by the fuel it consumes. Little or nothing about evolution depends on the spark that was the first replicator, or how that came to be. And, like a forest fire, life has probably consumed all evidence of the spark that ignited it.

Who gives a shit what brain-dead garbage you post? Listen, Mac, didyou actually think we were having a debate here? hahaha :) I'm justhere to tell you how it is, ok? Whether you accept it or not istotally irrelevant, get it?

www.dissentfromdarwin.org

DISSENT FROM DARWIN GOES GLOBAL AS OVER 600 SCIENTISTS FROM AROUND THEWORLD EXPRESS THEIR DOUBTS ABOUT DARWIN'S THEORY

Over 600 doctoral scientists from around the world have now signed astatement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporarytheory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online atwww.dissentfromdarwin.org, reads: "We are skeptical of claims for theability of random mutation and natural selection to account for thecomplexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwiniantheory should be encouraged."

The fastest growing segment of the list is scientists from outside theUnited States. International scientists now represent just over 12%of all signers, and as a group has seen nearly 40% growth in the pastfour months.

"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, because Iam absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence infavour of Darwinian dogma," said Raul Leguizamon, M. D., Pathologist,and a professor of medicine at the Autonomous University ofGuadalajara, Mexico.

"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinismat all," added Leguizamon. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, inorder to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. Andan awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say."

The list of 610 signatories includes member scientists from NationalAcademies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India(Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States. Many ofthe signers are professors or researchers at major universities andinternational research institutions such as Cambridge University,British Museum of Natural History, Moscow State University, MasarykUniversity in Czech Republic, Hong Kong University, University ofTurku in Finland, Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico,University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Pal?ontologieHumaine in France, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan,Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.

"Dissent from Darwinism has gone global," said Discovery InstitutePresident Bruce Chapman, former US Ambassador to the United Nations inVienna. "Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist inthe world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quicklystarted finding US scientists that disproved that statement. Now we'refinding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientistsall over the world that don't subscribe to Darwin's theory."

Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent FromDarwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinianevolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series. At the time itwas claimed that "virtually every scientist in the world believes thetheory to be true."

Prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences memberPhilip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of ScienceFellow -Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook authorStanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and aresearcher at the National Institutes of Health's National Center forBiotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista diBiologia / Biology Forum --the oldest still published biology journalin the world--Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of NaturalSciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.

Post by Malcolm McMahonAs I posted recently - life is like fire. The shape of a fire isn't muchaffected by the spark that ignited it, but rather by the fuel it consumes.Little or nothing about evolution depends on the spark that was the firstreplicator, or how that came to be. And, like a forest fire, life has probablyconsumed all evidence of the spark that ignited it.

Who gives a shit what brain-dead garbage you post? Listen, Mac, didyou actually think we were having a debate here? hahaha :) I'm justhere to tell you how it is, ok? Whether you accept it or not istotally irrelevant, get it?

No, you're clearly incapable of debate but what we say here is occasionallyread by people who might be mislead

Post by Malcolm McMahonYour pattern of response is consistent at least. An insult, hoping to drivesomeone who disagrees with you away, followed by some cut and paste quote.

Awwww, is it now I break down sobbing and beg forgiveness?

Post by Malcolm McMahonBut I smell hidden anger which is encouraging. Anger is a defence againstanything that threatens a person with doubt.

hehe, listen to Mac, He is too dumb and indoctrinated to even doubtthe Mickey Mouse snot he bellieves in :D

This is typical for the person in the mode of ignorance. A person inthe mode of passion, will at least have his doubts as to what is rightand wrong. A person in the mode of ignorance is totally convinced, butof the wrong thing. A person in the mode og goodness will know what iswhat.

No wonder you are such a miserable bastard.

People in the Modes

In Bhagavad Gita, people of different mentalities and desires aredescribed.

They come under three headings, and everything within the materialworld is a combination of these three categories, or modes, as theyare called.

By observing people around you and referring to the scientificpresentation of these three categories in Bhagavad Gita, it becomeseasy to psychologically evaluate yourself and any other human withminute accuracy.

The 3 modes of material nature - goodness, passion and ignorance - arelike the three primary colors. From the three prime colors all othercolors and shades of colors are made. Similarly, everything in thematerial world - the body, the mind, the intelligence, the work, theaction, the mentality, the situation, is a unique mix of these 3modes.

It's important to understand, that we are all a mixture of goodness,passion and ignorance, but one of these mode always predominates.

So lets look at how different persons view the world according to thethree modes. Let us examine how they perceive reality. This is veryimportant because reality is all about perception and awareness.

A person in whom the mode of ignorance predominates will identifypeople and himself by their work, usually what they do to make moneyor what kind of degree and education they have. The work a person doesis the main determining factor of a person's identity. When weidentify a person as a soccer player, an actor or an artist, that?sknowledge in the mode of ignorance.

A person in the mode of passion will identify other living entitiesaccording to the body like gender, race and family they inhabit. Youidentify people according to their body. That?s knowledge in the modeof passion.

A person in the mode of goodness will identify people according totheir soul. He will see the same soul in all living entities. He won'tidentify persons according to their work or their body, he will seethat all souls are part of the same whole, one energy. So in the modeof goodness you will have a holistic world view. That?s knowledge inthe mode of goodness.

Krishna says:

According to the three different modes of material nature, there arethree kinds of knowledge, action and performer of action. Now hear ofthem from Me. ? Bg 18.19

That knowledge by which one undivided spiritual nature is seen in allliving entities, though they are divided into innumerable forms, youshould understand to be in the mode of goodness. (Bg 18.20)

That knowledge by which one sees that in every different body there isa different type of living entity you should understand to be in themode of passion. (Bg 18.21)

And that knowledge by which one is attached to one kind of work as theall in all, without knowledge of the truth, and which is very meager,is said to be in the mode of darkness. (Bg 18.22)

A person in the mode of ignorance will find his main enjoyment inintoxication, sleep and dreaming. A person in the mode of passion willfind his main enjoyment in sex, power and prestige. A person in themode of goodness will find his main enjoyment in knowledge andlearning.

Again, it's important to note that you don't find people purely in onemode, it's always a mix.

The mode of ignorance destroys, the mode of passion creates and themode of goodness preserves and maintains.

So you can have a person who goes to his job every day for 20 years.That's maintaining, so that's the mode of goodness. But in his freetime he sits in the sofa watching TV and smoking a joint or having adrink, that's the mode of ignorance. Or he is a big business manmaking lots of money having power and prestige from some corporation.That's the mode of passion. Or the scientist or philosopher who studyand gather knowledge. That's the mode of goodness.

Liberation, however, means to transcend these three modes. That's theBrahman plane.

And beyond the Brahman plane is the Krishna plane where you act outall your desires to give Krishna enjoyment.

That is the final stage and goal of human life.

Krishna says:

Material nature consists of three modes ? goodness, passion andignorance. When the eternal living entity comes in contact withnature, O mighty-armed Arjuna, he becomes conditioned by these modes.

O sinless one, the mode of goodness, being purer than the others, isilluminating, and it frees one from all sinful reactions. Thosesituated in that mode become conditioned by a sense of happiness andknowledge.

The mode of passion is born of unlimited desires and longings, O sonof Kunti, and because of this the embodied living entity is bound tomaterial fruitive actions.

O son of Bharata, know that the mode of darkness, born of ignorance,is the delusion of all embodied living entities. The results of thismode are madness, indolence and sleep, which bind the conditionedsoul.

O son of Bharata, the mode of goodness conditions one to happiness;passion conditions one to fruitive action; and ignorance, coveringone?s knowledge, binds one to madness.

Sometimes the mode of goodness becomes prominent, defeating the modesof passion and ignorance, O son of Bharata. Sometimes the mode ofpassion defeats goodness and ignorance, and at other times ignorancedefeats goodness and passion. In this way there is always competitionfor supremacy.